Argumentative Essay on Police Use of Body-Worn Cameras in Criminal Justice

Introduction

The development and innovations in technology have significantly shaped the law enforcement and criminal justice system in the United States. People have become very enthusiastic about the technological innovations, especially those that have redefined the policing such as the body-worn cameras. This kind of technological development has received considerable attention from different stakeholders including the policing officials, criminal justice system as well as academics. There have been numerous claims regarding the body-worn cameras; some people criticize the policy while others support it. However, despite critics advocating for the unconstitutionality of the body-worn cameras, empirical evidence shows that this policy will improve the criminal justice system as well as reduce police force encounters with the members of the public. Therefore, without any doubt, body-worn camera policing is effective and should be fully implemented in all states. This study provides a review of the empirical evidence available regarding the body-worn cameras as a policy in the criminal justice system with the aim of providing comprehensive information that help the law enforcement agencies as well as the public to understand the importance of adopting the body-worn camera technology as a policing strategy to end crime as well as reduce police brutality.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Description of the Policy

Body-worn camera policy is the use of wearable audio, video or even photographic recording system in the law enforcement. The use of wearable cameras may be a new idea in some of the states in the U.S, but it is not a new idea in the law enforcement. According to Barley and Philip (2016), the use of body-worn cameras in the law enforcement has existed for quite some time now. According to the authors, the body-worn cameras have been widely used in various countries to record interactions between the police and the public. Body-worn cameras have been suggested to enhance the civilian and law enforcement officers' accountability. Even though some people have claimed that the use of wearable cameras is only aimed at protecting the interests of the police alone, but that is just argument that is partially based on the whole picture. The truth is that body-worn cameras protect everyone including the civilians. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the law enforcement officers that they are made to put on the cameras, but it is in the best interest of both civilians and officers. According to Gimbel (2016), the United States has invested heavily on body-worn camera programs in the past recent years; for instance, the government has invested over $24 million to help implement the body-worn camera program. According to Gimbel (2016), the government has decided to invest such huge amount of money in the program to help the civilians regarding the police brutality as well as public inquiry. According to Cherelus (2016), most of the U.S, cities have approved the use of body-worn cameras.

Some cities that already had the program have also expanded the program to enhance civilian protection. According to Cherelus (2016), the expansion of body cameras has been influenced by the previous incidences of police brutality towards the civilians. The author highlights some of the cases that have greatly facilitated the expansion of body camera program including the 2014 shooting that involved a white police officer with a civilian, black teenager Ferguson in Missouri. Body-worn camera policy applies to the entire criminal justice system. However, it mainly applies to the police or law enforcement agencies because they are the people in direct contact with the policy. It is the police that is expected to put on the cameras when they are on duty and everything that they do can be captured through the camera. Body-worn camera policy also applies to the courts especially when the information captured through the camera is presented as evidence in the courts. The public, on the other hand, is also slightly involved in this policy. Even though the policy is made to enhance accountability and reliability of the police officers, it is also important to note that body-worn camera policy is created to protect the civilians from the police brutality cases. There are several cases that have been reported in the past regarding police shooting as well as brutally mistreating the civilians. The use of cameras is set to change this narrative of police brutally handling the civilians. Everyone has a right, including the offenders, which need to be protected. The police are charged with the responsibility of protecting those rights. Therefore, if the use of body-worn cameras can help reduce police brutality cases towards civilian, then there is no need to object the policy.

Literature Review and My Position Regarding the Policy

The entire criminal justice system in the United States is facing a crisis of confidence regarding the body-worn camera policy. Lack of trust in the police has also contributed to some of the challenges that the law enforcement is facing today. However, with the use of body camera, it is more likely that such problems can be reduced if not eradicated completely. I do support the policy body-worn camera policy, but I also believe that it should be revised to suit the needs of every stakeholder involved. Every policy in the law enforcement agencies is made with the aim of protecting the civilians and the police. No life is important than another, and nothing is important as a human life. Therefore, the policies that are enacted should be able to reflect the above phrase. It should ensure that it protects every life; whether the civilian or police. Based on the study that was conducted by Upturn for the leadership conference of civil and human rights coalition, the use of body cameras was found to have high expectations towards reducing the social challenges (Cherelus, 2016). According to Cherelus (2016), the report showed that body cameras show remarkable results in terms of police officer accountability. Earlier research done on the use of body cameras in the law enforcement has shown positive results.

Even though the use of body cameras may be important and effective, the policy needs to be revised still to ensure that the police do not misuse the technology to extend their brutality or use of force against the civilians. Some have criticized the policy citing that there is a need for more research especially on the effectiveness of the cameras. According to White (2014), most of the early research showed that there has been a remarkable reduction in complaints against the police interactions with the civilians. However, most of these evaluations had significant methodological shortcomings. For example, there was no comparison group or even the independent evaluation on the early research (White, 2014). The author further notes that similar results have also been reported on the use of force and assaults on the law enforcement officers. Other scholars have claimed that the results from the piloting programs on the policy have shown conflicting results. According to Grossmith et al. (2015), the earlier research studies on body cameras have shown no significant difference in the officers' self-reported behavior or even on the proportion of arrests regarding the violent crime.

Empirical Evidence Supporting Body-Worn Cameras

Further, the body camera has not changed the way officers dealt with the victims or suspects arrested (Grossmith et al., 2015). Jennifer Doleac, an economist at the University of Virginia argues that the existing research on body camera policy is mixed and it is not clear to determine its effectiveness. According to Doleac (2017), it is difficult to determine whether the cameras reduce the police excessive force or increase the public's trusts in the police or law enforcement agencies. According to Doleac (2017), having the police carry the cameras on their body during the operations does not make any difference. There are many cases where bystanders have recorded or captured on their cell phones the video of police officers appear to unjustifiably brutally handles or even kill civilians. As a result, it is difficult to comprehend what possible difference the body cameras would make. The body camera policy may be good, but it requires more changes to show that it can make the difference in the criminal justice. Otherwise, it would not make any sense when the government invests millions of dollars in the programs that cannot make any change. According to Ripley (2017), people usually behave well when they know that they are being watched. Presence of other people or even a camera seems to convince individuals to behave in a civilized manner. People become less likely to speed up while they are driving or even steal from a store when they know that someone is watching them. According to Ripley (2017), a study undertaken in Washington for seven months on the use of body-worn cameras showed no significant statistical difference in the civilian complaints, charging decisions or even the use of force by the police. However, this does not rule out that the body-worn cameras can still help minimize some challenges experienced in the criminal justice system. Some scholars have agreed with the policy citing that despite the limited results shown, the body-worn cameras have the potential of making the criminal justice better.

Proponents of body-worn cameras argue that the policy is one effective move towards transforming the criminal justice system and the law enforcement agencies. According to Ripley (2017), the body-worn cameras have been found to have a calming effect on the civilians. In one of the experiments carried out in Rialto, Califf in 2012 where officers were randomly assigned body-worn cameras on their duty shifts, it was found that the number of civilian complaints against the police officers significantly declined.

The Potential Benefits of Body-Worn Cameras

Proponents of body-worn cameras believe that the policy will increase police and civilian accountability and transparency. According to Smykla et al. (2015), body cameras will improve police behaviors and conduct as well as civilian behavior. As a result, this will also reduce the unwarranted complaints against the law enforcement agencies and officers; thus, increasing the officer's and civilian's safety. The responsibility of keeping the society safe and habitable does not rely on the law enforcement alone. When the members of the public make it easy for the police to do their work, it is easy to keep the society safe. However, when there is no cooperation or collaboration from either side, it is difficult to establish peace or keep the society safe for anyone. The fact that the police keep the public safe does not mean that they are machines that no one cares about. These officers have families just like everyone else; they also need to come back to their families after work. This cannot be possible if the police officers keep dying in the line of duty because of the few rogue members of the public. If the cameras can make a change in this narrative of mistrust between the police and the civilians, it will be a good change in the whole criminal justice system.

Pasternack (2017) argues that several cases have been reported and witnessed even by the members of the public regarding the shootings that happen across the streets almost every day. According to the author, there is a ton of interest in the body-worn camera because they provide better real-time information in form of video which is streamed live to the station. This information can help improve the analytics' work; thus, improving the work of law enforcement officers. Further, Beglau (2017) also explains that even though the use of body cameras in policing is relatively a new concept in the law enforceme...